Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Oct 4, 2010 8:34am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: When did/does a band 'peak'?

"Are there any bands that 1) live long, and 2) prosper?"

Currently, I think Wilco continues to evolve and prosper, but I'll grant that part of that is the addition of Nels Cline (and others, like JOTS, tend to disagree with that).

I think Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers (if you include Mudcrutch, which I do) are playing the best music of their entire career the past two to three years. I include Tom as a triumvirate with Benmonth Tench and Mike Campbell.

Pearl Jam is celebrating their 20th anniversary at the Bridge School Benefit - the mass media overlooks them, but if you listen to their latest few releases, and especially if you catch them live, that is not a band that is stuck playing all of "Ten" and "Vs" in concert every night.

Would you say that Neil and Crazy Horse were stuck in a rut and didn't grow because Ragged Glory is not the same as Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere?

FWIW, I think T-Head's last album, Naked, is one of their best.

I don't always like where they end up, but I admire Radiohead for the way they keep evolving. Live, they can crush.

Dig, Lazarus, Dig is one of the best things Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds have ever done and Nick keeps it weird with Grinderman (Nov 29th at the Warfield; just 16 days after DEVO).

In short, I don't necessarily buy what you're selling.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Oct 4, 2010 8:47am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: When did/does a band 'peak'?

Your post got me to thinking....

How about Rush? They came through Va Beach year ago and other than being a little grayer and fatter (who isn't) they pretty much destroyed their show. Neil Pert was a beast!!

And I'm not talking about a shortened set of hits - it was a full 2.5 - 3 hour show. Contrast that with the Kansas-Journey-Chicago-Styx-Foreigner combo shows where each band comes out, sings two or three songs then gets taken off the stage in their wheelchairs for oxygen and defibrillation.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Oct 4, 2010 9:17am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: When did/does a band 'peak'?

>Kansas-Journey-Chicago-Styx-Foreigner combo shows

Is that a form of torture, or what?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Oct 4, 2010 6:50pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: When did/does a band 'peak'?

holy hell!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Oct 4, 2010 9:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: When did/does a band 'peak'?

Having been to their concerts back in the day when each was a solo headliner it was agonizing to watch.

Acoustic waterboarding......

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Oct 4, 2010 9:57am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: When did/does a band 'peak'?

Why did you go? Just being nosy I guess.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Oct 4, 2010 10:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: When did/does a band 'peak'?

Not nosy, fair question. I should have added the amplifying info - wife was/is a huge Steve Perry fan - hence Journey. When we saw Styx and Foreigner were also going to play we expected we were going to hear what remembered from back when we were in high school.

We did not and have no intention of going back to see one of the combo shows again.

I contrast that against what we saw when we went to the Tears For Fears show recently at the NORVA. It was sold out - almost 1500 people. They had mats on the floor in case the old folks fell so we wouldn't break a hip. They played what you expected they would have played. At one point Roland Orzabal quipped - "It's not like we are known for being an 80s classics band..............wait, yes we are." It was a fantastic, if short, show. They delivered what we both expected and were looking for.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Oct 4, 2010 12:44pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: When did/does a band 'peak'?

"They had mats on the floor in case the old folks fell so we wouldn't break a hip."

LMAO. I actually saw a full Journey concert in the 70's and they were pretty good for what they did - I liked the songs and Neil Schon was a heck of a guitar gunslinger. Bryan Adams opened - he had one hit - Summer of '69.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snori Date: Oct 4, 2010 2:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: When did/does a band 'peak'?

Very cruel and unusual punishment.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Oct 4, 2010 10:26am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: When did/does a band 'peak'?

"70s Butt Rock" a derisive term coined by my sons HS friends in the early 2000s for those sorts of bands I hated...they did too apparently.

Well, okay, have no idea if they invented the term, but I loved it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Oct 4, 2010 9:13am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: When did/does a band 'peak'?

Until Jon Anderson's recent vocal issues, the same could be said of Yes. Then again, I'm not sure that either of those bands (Yes and Rush) are still putting out compelling new music, while I think the ones I cited are still releasing good new music. I am ready to be flamed by Rush fans...

I know many people here hate U2, and often for good reason, but that's a band that keeps on trying to reinvent itself (with varying degrees of sucess). I certainly like that triumvirate of Achtung Baby, Zooropa, (and will include Passengers - Eno), and Pop better than anything in their earlier career.

Know it's not a band, but same Berlin studio/producer (the masterful Eno) gave Bowie that triumivrate of Low/Heroes/Scary Monsters - well after Hunky Dory glory.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Oct 4, 2010 9:19am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: When did/does a band 'peak'?

So the question now evolves to a matter of a band's staying power vs innovation/new material.

Rush didn't do anything new - but they sure as heck kicked the snot out of what they played.

We could probably divide the conversation into multiple camps - peaking as defined by innovation, evolving sound, new material or peaking as in 'when they played what they played' the best?

My head now hurts.....

I would throw Pat Metheny in as another 5 CEP outlier. Constantly innovating his music and approaches, but peaking with just about everything he does. Can't wait to see where/when his Orchestrion Tour comes closest to Va Beach as a road trip will be in order.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Oct 4, 2010 8:47am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: When did/does a band 'peak'?

So in essence, the view is biased by the "early death" of so many bands? IE, it is a truism (my theory) if only because whatever the % is, most bands are gone within five yrs of their origins (right? I think that's a truism).

But, with your counter examples, if they tally to 10 (20?) of the 100s of bands you like, score the first 100 you can think of for "first album > last album" and I think you'll concede defeat...

OK, was that too much homework? Maybe so...I dunno--for me it is very much the case, esp if I expand it to "first two albums vs last two albums" for a band that lasted five yrs. Hell, I guess we'd even say that's true for the DEAD (First + Aox > whatever the last two are called?).

In the end, all I am getting at is that there is a problem with my thesis that "early is better" in general since "later" is often missing. Doesn't that make sense?